The Great American Experiment VS. Utopia

The more and more I see our government’s actions today, the more I see we’re not dealing with people who believe in the Constitution or the United States of America as it was originally conceived. Rather, I see those who are living in a Utopian fog. They don’t acknowledge reality as it stands. They say, “Wait, be patient—we’re going to bring you something better.”
But this is very dangerous. It illustrates the difference between two ideas: The Great American Experiment and the concept of Utopia.

The Great American Experiment

The Founding Fathers of this nation foresaw for this nation something unique to the world’s history. Similar things had been tried before, from a true democracy to varying degrees of the republic idea. But these were small pockets in a world otherwise ruled by Kings and centralized powers. The founding fathers, however, felt that if the people governed themselves, that they would choose the good more often than the bad. Above all, they saw the evils heaped upon nations who were ruled by irresponsible, tyrannical, and otherwhise vicious leaders under the supreme rule of a king or monarch.
This would not do.
They believed that a people was intended by their Creator to be free, and that for a supreme government to force its citizens to do as it saw fit was unjust, corruptible, and ultimately, immoral.
Keep in mind that they had just come from a Monarch; the only government that they had ever known. The notion of letting your fellow citizens make their own choices around you was a lifestyle most alien to them. What if what they tried fell apart? What if the people ran towards anarchy? There was no evidence that their “experiment” would work. Quite the contrary: similar systems had been tried and failed—throughout history. Was this better than having a king? Couldn’t they just have a better king that the one that they had just left? The answer: “no king had ever led a nation to be just.”
So, they set out to make a nation of laws. Governed by the people, with representatives chosen by them to be agents on their behalf–a uniquely original republic. There was to be three branches, not one, to keep the others in check. This would protect the international interests of the nation, grant representational law to the people, and protect the laws that they had already established. Their idea was to limit the power of their government, even control it—if you will—while maintaining the premise that the people could govern themselves. Laws would be put in place mainly to defend the rights of one from interfering with the rights of another. The people would then be free to pursue their own happiness.

The Great American Experiment was a success. It was not without its trials, but ultimately it held together. Just as the idea was unique, so was the nation that came out of it. No other nation has seen the kind of success and history that this one has.

Utopia

The perfect society: sounds wonderful. It may be . . . until viewed through the lens of what is required to reach it. Utopia is the notion that a perfect state can be reached in this life, not just in the next. It requires that all eventually comply with the system. It expects you to accept that, in the long run, it will be better for all; you simply have to accept it. Utopians beleive that nothing is more important than the collective succeeding; a society perfect in all ways. There’s just one problem: Who’s idea of “perfection” are we subscribing to? Are blacks unclean? Are whites too oppresive and immoral? Does mental handicaps, disease, or age obsolete this perfect society? Are those who don’t see as you do too incompetent, to belong here any more? The problem with the Utopian mode of thought is that if you’re in their way, then Utopia will fail and, therefore, you must somehow be “neutralized”. There is no room for imperfection. By definition, “imperfection” destroys the Utopian concept entirely.

Now, you may be saying to yourself, “Yeah, but you’re speaking in absolutes.” You have to understand that this is how Utopians think. Deviation is simply “unacceptible”.
The reality is society will never be perfect. This is to say nothing of agency. What about your choice to participate or not? One thing that must be understood about Utopians is that they’re the ones who have the vision: Of what could be; of the final end game. If you don’t accept what they’re proposing, then the problem is with you. You are not sophisticated enough to recognize what’s best for you. There NEVER is a middle ground. The very ideas which they cling to “requires” absolutism. Otherwise, perfection will have failed. So, even if their concept of perfection is noble or arguably valiant, the very idea is flawed, because too many integers exist in the race of man. This “is” an imperfect world. It’s intended to be. What’s unique is my perception of imperfection and yours can be two different things. And what is perceived as different or misunderstood, can evolve. Enlightenment is the very definition of change. This process does not ask Utopia’s opinion first before moving on.

That’s what is so great about the Founder’s system: We can coexist. If you see the virtues in, say, Bhuddism or other Eastern ideas, and you wish to pursue them—you are free to do so. If you “evolve,” and turn to Christianity or other faiths, that is your perogative. But under the Utopian concept, there is no room for tolerance. One must comply to “perfection”. So ask yourself: is Buddhism in or out? Is it corruptible and against Christianity? Or does it contain beauty of form, harmonious teachings regarding respect for your fellow man, respect for the earth and the nature of things. Does Christianity contain too violent a past to be maintained or tolerated?
And what if all religion is deemed by Utopians as being simply silly superstition? Does the perfect Utopian society get rid of it althogether? Or for atheists, what happens when Utopia adopts the “perfect” religion? Does that mean that people like you are obsolete?
It doesn’t just have to be religion. What about business ownership, degree of accepted prosperity, or quality of life? When is society no longer required to sustain your life? Can you be too old, too handicapped, or too expensive to maintain? You may say to yourself that these are not for society to decide; that these should be personal choices. But then you’re not thinking as a Utopian. In Utopia, it is for society to decide, on behalf of the collective whole.

The last thing you have to ask yourself is, “Where are we heading now?” Are these the only two choices: “The Great American Experiment” and “Utopia”? This battle is not new. It is very old, actually. Either there is free agency with individuals, choosing for themselves; or there is the entire group being led to their salvation—with or without their consent. These cannot coexist.

I know where we are heading: and it is not for further personal freedom. Rights come with a price. There are too many who would see them taken away. We must fight. Don’t give in to the opposition’s voice because “it’s just so much louder” than yours. I know where the current administration would have us go. Nancy Palosi has said of the Healthcare Bill, “We must pass healthcare, so that people can finally see all the wonderful things that are in there.” Do you understand what she’s saying? This is Utopian speak. It’s a way of saying: “It’s not up to you, really, because you don’t understand. We’ll decide, and then you’ll see . . . you’ll see. Leave it to us.”
Obama’s own words have stated, “My salvation is dependent on the success of everyone else.” He’s stated this philosophy on more than one occasion. He believes as a Utopian does: Nothing is done without all going together.